Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. Yet he has come under intense criticism fire for applying those same principles, and his famed “shoe‑on‑the‑other‑foot test,” to Donald Trump, especially after arguing on the president’s behalf before the U.S. Senate as it deliberated impeachment.
Defending the Constitution seeks to refocus the debate over impeachment to the same standard that Dershowitz has upheld for decades: the law of the United States of America, as established by the Constitution. Citing legal examples from a long lineage of distinguished judges and attorneys, and examining the impeachment language in the Constitution itself, Dershowitz proves—first to the U.S. Senate, and now to readers everywhere—that President Trump should not have been impeached, and certainly should not be removed, for causes that do not meet the standards laid out by the founding fathers.
This book is Alan Dershowitz’s argument for a return to nonpartisan judgment based on the Constitution, for a preservation of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that make American government great. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about the impeachment of President Trump, and for everyone who cares about the future of U.S. government and society.

Alan Dershowitz, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo (2019).

Categories:

Criminal Law & Procedure

Sub-Categories:

Criminal Prosecution

,

Criminal Defense

,

Criminal Evidence

,

Jury Trials

Type: Book

Abstract

Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. Yet he has come under intense criticism for applying those same principles, and his famed “shoe‑on‑the‑other‑foot test,” to those accused of sexual misconduct.
In Guilt by Accusation, Dershowitz provides an in‑depth analysis of the false accusations against him, alongside a full presentation of the exculpatory evidence that proves his account, including emails from his accuser and an admission of his innocence from her lawyer, David Boies. Additionally, he examines current attitudes toward accusations of sexual misconduct, which are today, in the age of #MeToo, accepted as implicit truth without giving the accused a fair chance to defend themselves and their innocence, and suggests possible pathways back to a society and legal system in which due process is respected above public opinion and the whims of social media mobs.
This book is Alan Dershowitz’s plea for fairness for both accuser and accused, his principled stand for due process no matter the allegation, and his compelling assertion of his own innocence. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to know the inside story behind the accusations against him or who cares about the current societal debate over how we should handle accusations of sexual misconduct.
The #MeToo movement has generally been a force for good, but as with many good movements, it is being exploited by some bad people for personal profit. Supporters of the #MeToo movement must not allow false accusers to hurt real victims by hiding behind its virtuous shield, turning it into an exploitive sword against innocent people.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Defending Israel: The Story of My Relationship with My Most Challenging Client (2019).

Alan M. Dershowitz, The Case Against BDS: Why Singling out Israel for Boycott is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace (2018).

Categories:

Discrimination & Civil Rights

,

International, Foreign & Comparative Law

Sub-Categories:

Discrimination

,

Foreign Relations

Links:

Type: Book

Abstract

"In a never-ending attempt to destroy Israel, Muslim countries, the international Left, and anti-Semites of all political stripes have joined forces to create a worldwide campaign aimed at the economic and cultural isolation fo the Jewish State. BDS aims to de-legitimize Israel's very existence--barring it from international organizations, cultural exchanges, and global economic activity ... The Case Against BDS is a must-read for all people of goodwill who support Israel's right to exist. Only by shining sunlight on the shady origins and dishonest methods of BDS can we hope to defeat it"--Page 4 of cover.

In our current age of hyper-partisan politics, nearly everyone takes sides. This is especially true with regard to the Trump presidency. It has become difficult to have a reasonable discussion about the most controversial president in our recent history. For Trump zealots, their president has not only committed no crimes, he has done nothing wrong. For anti-Trump zealots, nothing Trump has done—even in foreign policy—is good. Everything he has done is wrong, and since it is wrong, it must necessarily be criminal. This deeply undemocratic fallacy—that political sins must be investigated and prosecuted as criminal—is an exceedingly dangerous trend.
Hardening positions on both sides has been manifested by increasing demands to criminalize political differences. Both sides scream “lock ‘em up” instead of making substantive criticisms of opposing views.
The real fear, as Alan Dershowitz argues, in this compelling collection, is that we have weakened our national commitment to civil liberties as the Left becomes ever more intolerant and the Right slips into authoritarian rhetoric. The vibrant center is weakening, with traditional liberalism and conservatism becoming further apart, not just in approach, but in their respect for Constitutional norms that have served us well for more than two centuries.
While Donald Trump is not the only cause of this profound division, his election drew it to the surface and made it the dominant paradigm of political debate. Unless we as a nation begin to focus again on what unites us rather than on what divides us, America might not survive the next decade.

"One of the world’s best-known attorneys gives us a no-holds-barred history of Jewish lawyers: from the biblical Abraham through modern-day advocates who have changed the world by challenging the status quo, defending the unpopular, contributing to the rule of law, and following the biblical command to pursue justice.
The Hebrew Bible’s two great examples of advocacy on behalf of problematic defendants—Abraham trying to convince God not to destroy the people of Sodom, and Moses trying to convince God not to destroy the golden-calf-worshipping Children of Israel—established the template for Jewish lawyers for the next 4,500 years. Whether because throughout history Jews have found themselves unjustly accused of crimes ranging from deicide to ritual child murder to treason, or because the biblical exhortation that “justice, justice, shall you pursue” has been implanted in the Jewish psyche, Jewish lawyers have been at the forefront in battles against tyranny, in advocating for those denied due process, in negotiating for just and equitable solutions to complex legal problems, and in efforts to ensure a fair trial for anyone accused of a crime.
Dershowitz profiles Jewish lawyers well-known and unheralded, admired and excoriated, victorious and defeated—and, of course, gives us some glimpses into the gung-ho practice of law, Dershowitz-style. Louis Brandeis, Theodor Herzl, Judah Benjamin, Max Hirschberg, René Cassin, Bruno Kreisky, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Irwin Cotler are just a few of the “idol smashers, advocates, collaborators, rescuers, and deal makers” who helped to change history. Dershowitz’s thoughts on the future of the Jewish lawyer are presented with the same insight, shrewdness, and candor that are the hallmarks of his more than four decades of writings on the law and how it is (and should be!) practiced." --Publisher

The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group. As Major General Avichai Mandelblit, the advocate general of the Israeli Defense Forces, aptly put it: “I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League. We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional: It’s a vicious lie.
The Goldstone report is, to any fair reader, a shoddy piece of work, unworthy of serious consideration by people of good will, committed to the truth.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Finding, Framing, and Hanging Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and Freedom of Speech in an Age of Terrorism (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008).

Categories:

Legal Profession

,

Constitutional Law

Sub-Categories:

First Amendment

,

Biography & Tribute

,

Legal History

Links:

Type: Book

Abstract

The #1 New York Times bestselling author, Harvard Law School professor, and tireless defender of civil liberties unearths a little-known letter by his hero, Thomas Jefferson, and shares its secrets. The letter illuminates Jefferson’s views on freedom of speech in a way that has important implications for the country today, particularly in the struggle against terrorism. This book is about the remarkable letter Dershowitz found, how he found it, and why it matters not only to him, but to us today.

The Boston Massacre. The Dred Scott decision. The Chicago Seven. O.J. Simpson. These are some of the trials that have both shaped and fascinated American society. Alan M. Dershowitz, who has been either a lawyer, consultant, or commentator on some of the most celebrated cases of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, highlights the trials he believes to be the most significant in our history, and discuses how they were central to the development of America's political and social structure.

Where do our rights come from Does "natural law" really exist outside of what is written in constitutions and legal statutes If so, why are rights not the same everywhere and in all eras On the other hand, if rights are nothing more than the product

One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in the history of America's judicial system produce a verdict after only hours of jury deliberation? Was this really a case of circumstantial evidence?

The criminal sentence seeks to reduce the frequency and severity of crimes by employing the following mechanisms: (a) isolating the convicted criminal from the rest of the population, so that he is unable to commit crimes during the period of his enforced isolation; (b) punishing the con victed prisoner, so that he—and others contemplating crime —will be deterred by the prospect of a painful response if convicted; (c) rehabilitating the convicted criminal, so that his desire or need to commit future crimes will be diminished. During different periods of our history, the power to deter mine the duration of a convicted criminal's sentence has been allocated to different agencies: first to the legislature; then to the judiciary; and now—under indeterminate sentencing—to the parole board. The locus of sentencing authority has a con siderable effect on such factors as the length of sentences, the degree of discretion, and the disparity among sentences. The century-long trend in the direction of indeterminancy seems to be ending. It is likely that the coming decades will witness a return to more legislatively-fixed sentences.